Hacking the Good days…

Nerding out on the packaging then write a blog post about it.  :)  But bear with me, this might be the next big finding after optical fibre…

One key thing I learnt over the holiday is that health is the most important thing and it’s like most projects, a-little-TLC (Tender, Love and Care)-a-day is way better then regrets towards the end of the ‘deadlines’, quite literally.  One of my uncles in Hong Kong has been advised by the doctor that he should start watching his cholesterol, and having porridge would help lower the cholesterol level.  Which, by the way, I always thought that was just marketing scam to make us buy more porridge.  But having seen him between half a year, with his mild exericise and regular consumption of porridge, his cholesterol reading was really coming down and he was looking really good.  So I decided that it’s a lovely habit and it’s probably not too difficult to start young, plus what’s better than a bowl of lovely hot porridge in freezing winter that keeps you full for longer!  (Oh for those who know me, yes I can eat A LOT in the morning… enough that slightly scared my developers friends back then in Yahoo!) :)

Yummy porridge aside, as a geek I study nutritional information of packing intently.  Always.  And I found the most peculiar thing on the Jordans’ packaging.  Would love to see if you think that’s a genuine typo, or, porridge is really this magical:

Sorry for the image quality – it’s taken from my iPhone.  Now the fun part, as you can see, a 100 gram of Jordan’s Porridge is only 135kcal more than a 40 gram of it.  Good news for the calories-conscious, no?  BUT the best peculiar stats – wait for it – the MORE porridge you have the LESS sugar and saturated fat there is (Sugar: 1.0 g  per 100g porridge versus 10.3g per 40g), (Saturated fat: 1.8g per 100g verus 3.1g per 40g).

Wow.  Must. Eat. Porridge. Daily.

Or maybe I should just ring up Jordan’s and see if it’s just a genuine mis-print on the packaging?  My curiosity is killing me.  Anyone?

NOTE: kudos to @NeilCrosby: it’s not a paradox. The 40g serving includes milk, the 100g figure does not. See the asterisked statement at the bottom.

Ain’t I silly!!!